Not sure if I said this already, but I went to go see The Last Airbender with someone. I had a kick out of the unintentionally hilariousness of it all, but the person I was with couldn't enjoy it even from an unintentional comedy standpoint. So, roughly fifteen minutes into it, we left.

I probably wouldn't mind a Worst Supporting Actor nomination for Dev Patel, simply for the fact that he went from a great film that came out of nowhere to win eight Oscars (Slumdog Millionaire)... to an M. Night Shyamalan-helmed disaster!

I probably wouldn't mind a Worst Supporting Actor nomination for Dev Patel, simply for the fact that he went from a great film that came out of nowhere to win eight Oscars (Slumdog Millionaire)... to an M. Night Shyamalan-helmed disaster!

So you'd nominate him for that rather than whether or not he actually did a good job in the movie? I mean he wasn't great but there were many actors FAR worse than him. I also used to think of Noah Ringer as worst actor too but, while he is indeed wooden and bland, there were worse actors in the film.

Not sure if I said this already, but I went to go see The Last Airbender with someone. I had a kick out of the unintentionally hilariousness of it all, but the person I was with couldn't enjoy it even from an unintentional comedy standpoint. So, roughly fifteen minutes into it, we left.

Ok. So you're telling me you saw 15 minutes and that's OK for you to judge the entire film? Are you kidding me?

I probably wouldn't mind a Worst Supporting Actor nomination for Dev Patel, simply for the fact that he went from a great film that came out of nowhere to win eight Oscars (Slumdog Millionaire)... to an M. Night Shyamalan-helmed disaster!

Read the reviews. Dev Patel was one of the few actors that were good in the film.

It's not that bad. It's that Shyamalan's name is attached to it. Had it been anyone else, the film would have gotten a much better reception. I've seen worse adaptations, including The Golden Compass, Inkheart, Eragon, and The Seeker, just to name a few and surprise, surprise, those aren't under 10% in RT. I wonder why.

A common complaint for TLA is that it's joyless and dull. The movies I've mentioned before are also joyless and even more
dull! I really don't get it at all. I'll admit it, TLA isn't up there
with Harry Potter and LOTR, but at least the story interested me the
whole way through, which is something I can't say about the other movies. Another complaint about the film is Noah Ringer's performance. So it's okay for Daniel Radcliffe to take three movies to better his performance but it's not okay for Ringer, on top of the fact that it is his first film? I call BS on that.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sorry, MWG, but this is one time your defense of the indefensible cannot be allowed to stand. I saw LAST AIRBENDER opening weekend in 3-D, acompanied by my 14-year-old son, who was familiar with the anime' series on which the films is based. Neither one of us could follow what was going on, where we were (or, for that matter, why we should care) for most of the film. I think its biggest problem was that, rather than trust this first entry to be compelling enough to set up a franchise, Shyamalan tried to cram plot points from several seasons of the TV series into a single 100 minute film -- and it simply did not work. Both critical response and word-of-mouth on the movie show widespread support for this contention, and continuing to argue the point only makes you seem desperate and almost pitifully obsessed with defending a film-maker who has clearly lost his way...

2. The dialog is nothing but explaining the entire backstory of the show's mythology.

3. Shyamalan is trying to cram the entire first season of the TV series into 90 minutes.

4. The movie is not loyal to the source material, example: most of the actors are either white or Indian, in the show, they are all Asian.

In other words, it IS that bad, and it angered fans of the series.

And again, no you can't judge the quality of a movie based on a poster. This is just marketing, a hook to trick you into seeing a movie. How do you judge if I movie is any good? By REVIEWS, done by critics who know what a good movie is (including MWG's beloved Ebert). And if the movie is under 10%, that's proof enough for me that it sucks.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

I think the action scenes are one of the few good things in the film. I love how it's all one take and not shaky like what Paul Haggis did with the Bourne films.

2. The dialog is nothing but explaining the entire backstory of the show's mythology.

But it's to be expected. Inception does the same thing. Yes, I just compared Inception to TLA. Inception takes a lot of its time to explain the rules of the dreams and explains them a whole second time and sometimes, the film ignores the rules established just for the convenience of the characters.

4. The movie is not loyal to the source material, example: most of the actors are either white or Indian, in the show, they are all Asian. In other words, it IS that bad, and it angered fans of the series.

The film contains almost every ethnicity known to man. It's diverse and every character in the tv show wasn't Asian.

1. I think the action scenes are one of the few good things in the film. I love how it's all one take and not shaky like what Paul Haggis did with the Bourne films.

2. But it's to be expected. Inception does the same thing. Yes, I just compared Inception to TLA. Inception takes a lot of its time to explain the rules of the dreams and explains them a whole second time and sometimes, the film ignores the rules established just for the convenience of the characters.

3. The film contains almost every ethnicity known to man. It's diverse and every character in the tv show wasn't Asian.

1. Really, you enjoy action scenes that are shot almost entirely in super slow-motion, regardless if it's called for or not? Nah, not surprised by that.

2. Yes, "Inception" did, BUT they could SHOWED the rules as well as explaining them out loud. Show, not tell, something M. Night USED to know, but no longer does. And no, "Inception" didn't break at the rules, you die in the normal dream, you wake up. You die in the dream while under the drug, you go to limbo. You die in limbo, you wake up. You get a kick in a normal dream, you wake up. If you're in multi-level dreams, you need a kick to wake up from each dream. Where's the cheating?

3. Yes, but they are the WRONG ethnicities based on what the ethnicities of the characters in the cartoon were. In the cartoon, the fire tribe was clearly Asian, in the movie, they are all Indian. Not loyal to the series.

Still want to defend your hero who falling from grace faster than a penny off the Empire State Building?

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

2. Yes, "Inception" did, BUT they could SHOWED the rules as well as explaining them out loud. Show, not tell, something M. Night USED to know, but no longer does. And no, "Inception" didn't break at the rules, you die in the normal dream, you wake up. You die in the dream while under the drug, you go to limbo. You die in limbo, you wake up. You get a kick in a normal dream, you wake up. If you're in multi-level dreams, you need a kick to wake up from each dream. Where's the cheating?

They never said that when you die in limbo, you wake up. The film made it sound crucial that being in limbo is the worst thing that could ever happen and when Cobb finally get to limbo in the end of the film to take out Satio, it's as easy as pie.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum